God vs. Satan

God loves people and wants them to “be fruitful and multiply” on the Earth.

Satan hates people and wants to kill and destroy them all.


Jesus said:

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 10:10

Whose influence do you think is behind the “commandment”, literally carved in stone, to

MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000
IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE

At the time of this post, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Clock, the worldwide human population is 6,793,142,980.

Therefore, “MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000” means reducing humanity by almost 6,300,000,000 people! Those who believe that “sustainability” requires that human population must be maintained under 500 million therefore also believe in eliminating 6.3 Billion people (93% of the world’s population)!

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 6:12

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to God vs. Satan

  1. “The Earth can’t take 6.5 billion people. We just can’t feed that many. So what are you going to do? Kill as many as you can. We have to develop a science that kills them and makes it look as though they died from some disease,”

  2. Neil says:

    Wow, that is pretty evil!

    Guess who gets to decide which live or die? The Greens, of course.

  3. Aaron says:

    Let the enviro-lefties who actually believe this nonsense and truly subscribe to the notion of reducing the world’s population lead by example.

    They can “depopulate” themselves first.

  4. Lee says:

    Folks it is wrap up time.All I’ll add to this newsletter is that Obama signed the hate crimes bill into law today. http://lasttrumpetnewsletter.org/2009/11_09.html

  5. I agree we’re getting cose to “last call”…
    I believe there will be a worldwide revival first.

    Speaking of the “Hate Crime” legislation Obama just signed…

    Biblically Correct, Not Politically Correct…

    Genesis 19

    Leviticus 18:22

    Leviticus 20:13

    Judges 19:16-23

    Romans 1:18-28

    There was a time when Biblically Correct WAS Politically Correct…
    there was no difference between the two.

    The same state that now sends Barney Frank to Congress would have found him guilty of a capital offense when that state was a colony…

    The 1672 General Laws and Liberties of the Massachusets Colony:

    If any Man LYETH with MANKINDE as he lyeth with a Woman, both of them have committed Abomination, they both shall surely be put to death, unless the one party were forced, or be under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall be severely punished, Levit. 20. 13.

    Compare that to the “Hate Crime” legislation Obama just signed.
    From one extreme to the other.

    Now, before any lib accuses me, I am NOT calling for vigilante killing of homosexuals. I AM truthfully reporting what the Bible says, what the law in Colonial Mass. said, and discussing the “Hate Crimes” legislation Obama just signed.

    Those who used to be considered, by both God’s law (the Bible) and man’s law, of being guilty of a capital offense (homosexuality), are now lifted up by man’s law, while those who continue to lift up God’s law are now increasingly considered criminals by man’s law.

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
    Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
    Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    Isaiah 5:20

  6. The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age:

    Matthew 24

    Mark 13

    Luke 21

  7. Neil says:

    Glad to see the analysis of the “Hear our cry” video. Those “religious” people are worse than TV preachers.

  8. Jonah says:

    Hi again. Long time no see.

    Those who used to be considered, by both God’s law (the Bible) and man’s law, of being guilty of a capital offense (homosexuality), are now lifted up by man’s law, while those who continue to lift up God’s law are now increasingly considered criminals by man’s law.

    Just to be clear, by “lifted up my man’s law”, you mean that the penalties for assaulting gay people are moderately harsher than they used to be.

    Since hate crime laws only affect the punishment for things that were already illegal (in particular, it only covers violent actions resulting in death or bodily injury), I can see why conservatives might find them unnecessary. But why exactly do you find it to be an infringement on free speech? Please explain.

  9. Ryan says:

    Jonah, isn’t in obvious? The conservatives are hell bent on defending our God given right to yell out “HOMO” while killing somebody. It’s free speech.

  10. Jonah,

    Good to see you.

    I’d like to see your comments on what I wrote in the the main post.

    As to what you said about what I wrote in one of the coments,

    penalties for assaulting gay people are moderately harsher than they used to be.

    Assault is assault. When penalties are made harsher based on some trait of the victim, that class of victim is “lifted up” and made “more valuable”. The penalties for assaulting the “more valuable” person are harsher than the penalties for assaulting the “less valuable” person.

    Since hate crime laws only affect the punishment for things that were already illegal (in particular, it only covers violent actions resulting in death or bodily injury), I can see why conservatives might find them unnecessary.

    Not just unneccessary, but wrong.

    But why exactly do you find it to be an infringement on free speech? Please explain.

    This goes beyone just punishing the crime, and punishes the presumed thoughts and motivations of the criminal, while elevating certain classes of victims above others. It’s wrong on both of those accounts.

    And it’s a step in the direction of where the Democratic Socialist Communists really want to go… making it a crime to believe what the Bible says.

    Those who can’t handle the truth,
    try to silence those who speak it.

  11. Ryan,

    While I’ve never called someone a “Homo”, I’ve been called that by other people.

    Your comment reveals a lot of pent-up anger, that you mistakenly project upon me.

    Jesus loves you, and so do I.

  12. Once upon a time I was a fan of Sting. Now, he is the epitome of a lost globalist goat who doesn’t follow the true God and is easily deceived into believing Obama is “sent from God” and particularly qualified because of his background in regard to Islam.

    Sting isn’t a religious man, but he says President Barack Obama might be a divine answer to the world’s problems.

  13. Jonah says:

    Red,

    Good to see you.

    Likewise. Hope all is well.

    I’d like to see your comments on what I wrote in the the main post.

    I’m a little bothered you can’t guess my opinion, but I’ll state it anyway. I think the Ten Commandments of the New World Order are absolutely idiotic. Fortunately, I’ve never met anyone who believes in them. Because of that last part, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to discuss them seriously.

    When penalties are made harsher based on some trait of the victim….

    That’s not what hate crime laws are about, of course. The bill in question only applies when the victim was selected because of such a trait, and the prosecution has to prove intent in order for the penalties to apply.

    Not just unneccessary, but wrong.

    For what it’s worth, I actually agree with you here. The United States is already too much of a prison culture, with the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the entire world. We don’t need new minimum sentences to force that rate even higher.

    This goes beyone just punishing the crime, and punishes the presumed thoughts and motivations of the criminal.

    Again, there must be evidence for the law to apply, so no “presumptions” are happening. And, more to the point, this happens in many other trials already. What’s the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter? Intent. Between arson and just a regular fire? Intent. It is absolutely reasonable to ask questions about what the defendant meant to do. That’s the difference between a crime and no crime in the first place!

    And it’s a step in the direction of where the Democratic Socialist Communists really want to go… making it a crime to believe what the Bible says.

    Let’s avoid the slippery-slope fallacy for a moment here, and just focus on whether the specific changes made to the law are a good thing or not. Liberals have this problem just as much as conservatives: look at Democrats who vote against even good laws that protect the unborn, because they’re worried it’s an attack on abortion rights. I think we’ll be better off if we judge the bill solely by what it says.

    On that note, if you’re interested, you can get a lot of questions answered here.

  14. Pingback: “Tolerant of everything and anyone, except God and His Commandments” « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  15. Aaron says:

    The rub with “hate crimes” is that the burden of proof for assessing “intent” of the criminal is nought. If he is found guilty of the primary crime, then tacking on some flimsy excuse for why he “chose” one victim over another ends up being sufficienc “proof” that it was a hate crime.

    More often, the fact that the victim is of the elevated class is placed against the accused NOT being an elevated and submitted as evidence in and of itself, thus the “proof” that it was a hate crime is circular reasoning, especially in cases that don’t involve crimes for personal gain (like theft). Basically, “The [unelevated accused] attacked, shot, and killed the [elevated victim]. The fact that the accused committed those crimes against [an elevated] is proof enough of his motivation, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.”

    Proponents of the hate crimes legislation openly support it BECAUSE it is an end run around the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Think it’s preposterous? Take a look at the number of past cases where people ACQUITTED of various crimes in state courts were put on trial in federal court for “violating the civil rights” of the victim of a crime they were previously exhonerated of even committing. That happened innumerable times from the ’60s to the late ’90s, following the civil rights legislation. Not to mention that said people were re-tried ex-post facto.

    Here is a good article about the precious hate-crimes legislation that all these lefties embrace so strongly:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m10d28-Obama-signs-hatecrimes-bill-into-law

  16. Jonah says:

    Aaron, thanks for your thoughtful response and helpful link. As a civil liberties-oriented guy, I agree with many of the criticisms in the article. I’m a bit skeptical of the claim in your very first paragraph (the new law tightens the restrictions on what evidence can be used to prove intent), but the double jeopardy issues are exactly the sort of thing that gives me pause over supporting the bill. Especially this quote:

    The federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.

    Ugh. Appalling.

    Anyway, the only other thing I’d object to from your post is the suggestion that “all these lefties” are embracing the bill. To the contrary, many of my favorite liberal bloggers do not. Just sayin’.

  17. Ryan says:

    Most people would call me a lefty, but I’m not sure about this bill either. I think society punishes those who commit crimes out of hate. Let the state punish the actual crime. A crime committed with the motivation of hatred will likely be met with a more severe sentence anyways. Judges already have this kind of discretion in sentencing.

  18. Aaron says:

    Which is precisely the problem with this “hate crimes” legislation.

    Unfortunately for any proponents of this type of law-making, the slippery slope more often than not ends up ringing true. Whether one calls it a fallacy or not, it still happens. That is why it must be vehemently opposed from the start.

    A crime is a crime whether, no matter the motivation for it. Will Al Sharpton be supportive when hate crimes laws are turned on the next black man that kills a white person? Or will we be watching “LA Riots II” on the news?

  19. westexan says:

    Biblically correct is always correct. That is to say, “for there is no other name (Christ Jesus) under heaven given among men by which we must be saved, just as there is no other law than the Commandments given at Mt Sinai by which man must co-exist.

    Interestingly the first five of the commandments were written on a stone tablet and the other five were written on another stone tablet= two stone tablets = a total of Ten Commandments. The first stone tablet teaches family values and continuity of both of the God family and the immediate family. The second tablet teaches the values of friends, associates, and nations, and civilizations.

    In short the Ten Commandments is the basis for the survival of the God family and the survival of civilization, without law there is only lawlessness. The ten Commandments are the only definition of sins in existence.

    “”” After hearing the commandments, from God Himself, the people @Mt Sinai were very afraid of God. Moses tries to comfort them, saying, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you MAY NOT SIN.” (Exodus 20:20). Another fact of reallity: the Ten Commandments are the only definition of what sin is, and by extension the only definition of crime , not only in America, but in the world today. 1st John 3:4 “Whoever commits sin commits Lawlessness, and sin is Lawlessness.”

    Sin and lawlessness is not confined to any religion but it is also against God, friends, family, associates, and civilization and humanity in general.

    So why does Obama sign hate crime legislation which even his supporter, Senator Byrd, formerly a Grand Wizzard of the KKK, would not and did not vote for? Simply because he (Obama)does not, or cannot comprehend the laws of God. Rather he is all wrapped up in the teachings of his minister Rev Wright who still teaches “an eye for an eye”
    in which case all concerned are blinded. It is yet another case of the blind leading the blind.

  20. westexan says:

    Anyone who does not uphold the 6th commandment “You shall not commit murder” , condones murder,

    Anyone who does not uphold the 7th commandment “You shall not commit adultery”, condones adultery.

    Anyone who does not uphold the eighth commandment ” you shall not steal” condones stealing.

    Anyone who does not uphold the ninth commandment “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” condones lieing.

    Anyone who does not uphold the tenth commandment “about coveting your neighbor ” condones envy.

    Anyone who does not uphold the last five of the Ten Commandments do not support the American judicial system. IE the American Constitution.

  21. westexan says:

    Anyone who does not uphold the American values does not value America as a nation of God , country, and individualism. We are on the verge of another revolution, not of tea parties, but of survival of independence. I fought one war and I will fight another, if necessary. I would rather die fighting for independence than die from stagnation. My God forbids that.

  22. westexan says:

    Why does Isaiah 2:3 say ” Come let us go up to the mountain of the Lord? To the house of of the God of Jacob; “? Why not to the house of Abraham, Isaac,, and Jacob? Because Abraham had another son by the name of Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabic peoples. Ishmael was not to be considered in the inheritence of the first-born., the progenitor of the Arabic people. The promise of the first born belonged solely to the lineage of Isacc, the caucasion people. The God of Abraham , indeed was the God of the Arabics, but the Arabics were not to shqre in the promises of the first born. Today the Arabic Islamics are not the people of God–plain and simple.

  23. Jonah says:

    It’s pretty amazing that in just four posts we went from “hate crimes are discriminatory” to “only caucasians are the people of God.” Amazing, but not surprising.

  24. Aaron says:

    Your straw-man is equally “amazing, but not surprising.”

    The Arabics CHOSE not to share in the promise of which westexan was speaking. That you would go on and make the claim he believes, “only caucasians are the people of God,” is not only a straw-man, it’s also a quote-mine.

    Let’s also remember the small population of modern day Arabs that have chose to share in that promise and have to hide from the potentially lethal persecution from the majority of Arabs (the ones who chose NOT to share in that promise) in their respective countries. Looks like it’s not “only caucasians” that are the people of God.

  25. Jonah says:

    Let’s also remember the small population of modern day Arabs that have chose to share in that promise and have to hide from the potentially lethal persecution from the majority of Arabs (the ones who chose NOT to share in that promise) in their respective countries. Looks like it’s not “only caucasians” that are the people of God.

    I don’t think I would have been offended if it looked like westexan were saying that. But since he clearly stated that the promise of God belonged SOLELY to the caucasian people, I think you’re the one putting words in his mouth.

  26. westexan says:

    Ham , Shem, Japeth. The Table of Nations.

    Hammitic, from Egypt to Etiopia —Africa.

    Japeth –Orientals to Aleutes to India-Indonesia.

    Shem the progenitor of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, the progenitor of David, the progenitor of Christ.

    Ishmael, the bastard son of Abraham and Haggar (the handmaid of Sarah), the progenitor of the Arabic people of whom would not share in the promises of the first born– Genesis 21:10. Hence the conflict between Modern day State of Israel and the Arabics. Both claim the rights of the first born–because both are the sons of Abraham. Both claim the rights of the first born, the “PROMISES of GOD”. Which includes the “Holy Land” of Canaan, IE ISRAEL. Today the Arabics say Israel is tresspassing.

    Isaac, the son of “PROMISE” to whom all the promises of God were to be granted as the right of the “first born”. Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah, the father of Jacob (who was given the name of Israel by God). Israel, the father of the Children of Israel, of which Judah (the Jewish people were a tribe) of which the King David was born of which The Christ was born –according to the Gregorian calender – (minus) 4AD. Jesus Christ was caucasion–WHITE.

    Galatians 3:16 ” Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, and to your Seed,” who is Christ.”

    In short, the promises of God are to the CAUCASION RACE who are of the lineage of ISAAC, the son of Promise–in whom ALL the nations would be blessed— by Jesus Christ.

  27. Jonah says:

    See, Aaron?

  28. Aaron says:

    Westexan,

    I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but…

    I can only hope that your claim about God’s promise is limited to only referring to the land of Israel, which does belong to the Jewish population no matter what some angry Roman general chose to name it and no matter what murderous empires subjugated the land in the 7th century.

    I can’t imagine the amount of backlash if you were referring to Christian salvation and the rewards of the after-life being only reserved for whites.

    Please clarify what you were referring to.

  29. Westexan,

    Sons and Heirs

    For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    Galatians 3:26-29

  30. westexan says:

    redpill

    You are right, and “God is no respecter of persons” Romans 2:11. He shows partiallity to NO ONE, whether they are red, white, black, brown, yellow, copper or purple.

    That doesn’t change the following historical fact the apostle Paul spoke of:

    Roman 9:3,4,7 “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the PROMISES; nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but in Isaac your seed shall be called. (NKJV).

    Isaac was caucasion. Paul also informed the people in the church at Ephesus, who were not of the seed of Isaac (caucasion) nor of Israel, of their former status in the eyes of God:

    Ephesians 2:11-13 “Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh-who are called uncircumcision by what is called circumcision made in the flesh by hands– that at that time you were without Christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been made near by the blood of Christ.”

    Paul repeats that in verse 19-20: “Now therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles (New Testament-New Covenant) and prophets (Old Testament- Old Covenant), Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.”

    Race is never mentioned in the old or new Testaments. Skin color and nationality is mentioned numerous times, but not in any racial sense that some people think about today. There is a reason why God chose the people he chose to follow Him and whom He would make His covenants with and give promises to. Not for their skin color, nor their goodness, nor their nobility, loyalty, or any greatness. There is a reason, but I will only say — God had to start with someone somewhere and the ones He began with were Caucasion. These people He begin with sacrificed their children to pagan gods by embedding them in the foundations of their homes. These people were Caucasion.

    Most of the time “hate crimes” are committed by people who do not even know the people whom they commit the crime against. The Jewish Pharisees hated Jesus and wished Jesus dead and the Romans carried out the wishes of the Jewish leaders (caucasions) and crucified the Lord, the God of creation.

    Again Paul speaks– 1st Corinthians 2:7-9 “But we (christians) speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.”

    The crucifixion of Jesus was a hate crime. But unlike some other prophets, Jesus died for the reconcilliation of the world to God the Father
    . Meaning Jesus made peace between God and the world through His death. Whereas some other prophets will not be satisfied until God destroys the world. The truth is the truth and it can’t be changed. Just as our school text books says Christopher Columbus discovered America, but the true history tells us the American Indians were waiting onshore to greet him when he arrived.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s